S ff 




I 

.-41..-: 



Author . 



Title 



Imprint. 



10 — 47372-2 OFO 



THE 



Annexation of Hawaii 



AN ADDRESS BY 



Hermann Eduard Von Holst, Ph.D. 

HEAD PROFESSOR OF HISTORY IN THE 
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO 



DELIVERED" BEFORE 

THE COMMERCIAL CLUB 

OF CHICAGO 

AT ITS 140TH REGULAR DINNER 
AT THE AUDITORIUM HOTEL 

JANUARY 29, 1898 




A\ 



THE 



Annexation of Hawaii 



AN ADDRESS BY 



Hermann Eduard Von Holst, Ph.D. 



Air. President and Gentlemen of the Commercial Club: 

The question you have asked me to discuss is so many-sided and 
complex that I can barelv touch what, to me, seem to be the most 
important points. I, therefore, go into medias res without any fur- 
ther introduction. , tt 

What is the criterion for deciding the question; ought Hawan 
to be annexed bv the United States? I answer, first, in a negative 
way Not the wishes or interest of the islanders. Whether they 
would be benefited or not bv annexation does not legitimately enter 
into the question with so much as a feather's weight. The conten- 
tion that to them it would be a great and unalloyed blessing can be 
allowed to pass unchallenged by the American opponents of the 
project. It would be Quixotic on the part of the people of the 
United States to make this consideration the compass in deter- 
mining upon the course of their policy. It is not only their un- 
questionable right, but also their imperative duty to be guided 
solely by their own interest. To prove that annexation is in then- 
interest, it does not, however, suffice that some advantages would 
be derived from it. The task incumbent upon the advocates of the 
ratification of the treaty is to demonstrate that these advantages 
are not overbalanced by disadvantages. To do this, they must not 
let their eyes stav riveted to the present and the near future, but 
look ahead a long way; they must not descant merely upon the 
direct consequences, but also refute all rational apprehensions^ as 
to the mediate effects ; they must deal not only with the certainties, 
but also with the probabilities, and disprove the existence of con- 
tingent dangers outweighing the promised benefits. Declamation. 



therefore, ought not avail ihcni anything before the forum of pubHc 
opinion. They owe us sober and sound argument, based not upon 
hypotheses and assumptions, but upon the facts. Not upon those 
who want to "let well enough alone" does the burden of proof rest, 
but upon them that urge upon us a new departure in our national 
politics. j\Iind proo f. Mere assertions will not answer, or, at least, 
ought to be spurned. By appealing to the prejudices and passions 
of the people, they may possibly carry their point; but the more 
they resort to this means, the more they will stand convicted of the 
weakness, nay, the badness of their cause. If they honestly believe 
it to be good, let them strictly confine themselves to pleading it 
before the only tribunal that ought to be recognized as competent 
— our reason. 

Can the annexationists rightfully claim to have already accoip- 
plished the task which 1 declared incumbent upon them? To judge 
from a sentence in the President's message, he seems to think so 
now, although during the pendency of the Presidential election 
many people believed that some intimations of his warranted the 
inference that he was not in favor of the project. With all due 
respect, I beg to dififer \vith him toto coelo. The time at my dis- 
posal does not permit my noticing' all the reasons adduced in sup- 
port of the project, but 1 shall select those which I honestly believe 
the annexationists themselves wish to be considered the weightiest. 
If I should lay myself open to the charge of misrepresenting them, 
or keeping some cardinal jjoint out of view, the sin of commission 
or omission may spring from different causes, but it will not be due 
to a conscious lack of fairness. I want tu meet them in the open 
and without any advantage as to either sun or wind. And in trying 
to refute them, and to make good my counter-propositions, 1 shall 
scrupulously adhere to the rules I laid down for them: no declam- 
ation, but argument, — no assertions unsubstantiated, either In- facts, 
or experience, or the given circumstances, or the laws inherent in 
human nature. — no recourse to overstatement and hipii coloriuir. — 
no working upon the emotions. In a word, I shall, in perfect can- 
dor, direct my efforts, not towards making out my case, but towards 
ascertaining what the case is. 

"Ilie peo])k' want annexation." To hear the more rabid annex- 
ationists, this is so palpable that it is sheer folly to contest it. Some 
of them go to the length of treating the alleged fact impliedlv as 
a knock-down argument, rendering the searcli for anv further rea- 



sons a labor of supererogation. They take their stand upon the 
idea that, as Fisher Ames said, as early as 1805, "in our country 
'popularity' is the test of right and wrong." (F. Ames's Works, I., 
344.) If the people had really adopted this maxim and consistently 
acted it out, the United States would surely not be to-day what they 
are, nav, it is very questionable whether such a political entity as 
the United States of America would still be in existence. It is im- 
possible to gainsay that, if one knows but the A B C of their his- 
tory. To mention but two instances: I am yet to learn that the 
Constitution framed by the Philadelphia convention and Jay's 
treatv were popular. The adoption of the former, however, saved 
the life of the republic, and enabled it to become the very prodigy 
of history, and the ratification of the latter got the ship of state at 
least out of the worst breakers, so that it could survive the roaring 
sea of troubles and dangers into which it was plunged by the 
revolutionary commotions in Europe. And the Constitution was 
adopted and the treaty ratified because there were men who deemed 
the prevailing opinion wrong, and dared to take issue with the 
people. They appealed— to vary a little a formula well-known to 
the student of the history of the Roman Catholic church — a pojiuk) 
male infor mato ad populum mel ius, informandum , and their argu- 
ments changed the minds of a sufficient number to turn the current. 
If the day should ever come when no men could be found muster- 
ing courage enough to live up to their convictions and to try to stem 
a pernicious popular current, however mighty it be, and when the 
f)eople, in their passion, infatuation or stolidity, should declare their 
minds irrevocably closed against ungrateful arguments, the republic 
would be irretrievably doomed, though its wealth and its power were 
ever so great. Whatever smacks of an attempt to silence opposition 
to annexation by pointing to the alleged will of the people, is, there- 
fore, worse than preposterous. It is not contending for the principle 
of democracy, but laying the ax to the very root of rational democ- 
racy, which is discussion. The more the people are bent upon an- 
nexation, the more it is the imperative duty of those who are con- 
vinced that it would be injurious to speak out in no uncertain tones. 
I, for one, shall do so, though I am, more than others, exposed to 
obloquy, and the charge of being insensible to the interest and glory 
of the republic, because I am not to the manner born— I shall do so, 
because I conceive it to be a solemn obligation resting upon me as 
a citizen, and because ^■ou have honored me with an invitation to 



present my views to you. Jt 1 believed the question of any less 
moment, I could have justly held myself excused by the state of my 
health. But the more I have pondered it, the more 1 have become 
convinced that, with the exception only of the declaration of their 
independence, the adoption of the Constitution and the slavery issue, 
with its offspring secession, the American people have never been 
confronted bv a more portentous prdblem. To many, this will seem 
the wildest exaggeration. Undoubtedly, I may be mistaken, but 
the conviction is based upon what thirty years of earnest study have 
taught me of the laws governing the evolutionary history of the 
United States. That the dangers with which it is fraught mostly 
do not lie so plainly on the surface as to catch also the eye of the 
superficial observer, and that they are not of a character calculated 
strongly to impress the popular mind, renders them only the greater. 
They are not pregnant with a near, obvious and acute crisis. If they 
were, we would have less to apprehend. What a nation has to dread 
the most are the slowly working poisons, wdiose ravages make but 
an almost imperceptible progress. They work the corruption of the 
blood, the corruption of the blood vitiates all the vital functions, the 
vitiation of the vital functions undermines the power of resistance, 
and drains the recuperative forces, and evolution becomes ever more 
a slow gliding down towards the fatal end, not so much on account 
of any specific disease as because of a lack of vitality. 

No person having the slightest knowledge of the history of the 
United States can dispute that it fully bears out what I asserted a 
minute ago: the popularity of annexation is not a proper gauge to 
measure its desirability by, and still less is it eo^ijgso conclusive. Even 
if this were otherwise, it would, however, be still much too early in 
the day for the opponents of the measure to stop contending against 
it and respectfully bow themselves out. For, thus far, it is by no 
means proved thaj_ the majority of the people really wish it. The 
mere assertion of the advocates, be it ever so positive, does not ren- 
der it an indisputable and demonstrated fact. Thus far, no au- 
thentic expression of the people's views, wishes and will has been 
elicited; nor will it be, unless the opponents forthwith begin to be- 
stir themselves as vigorously as, with not very many exceptions, they 
have been heretofore lethargic. Appearances, I admit, are so much 
in favor of the assertion of the advocates that there is no difficulty 
in accounting for their perfect good faith in making it. The ex- 
planation of this phenomenon is, however, exceedingly simple. It 



is to be found in a trite truth, the appreciation of which usually 
stands in an inverse ratio to its importance. A homely German 
saying expresses it thus: "It takes but one man to make more noise 
by slfouting than a hundred men that keep still." I am far from 
contendino- that at present the majority of the people are averse to an- 
nexation; but I do contend that a great many have never bestowed a 
single thought on the question, and that an infinitely greater number 
have not cared enough for it to make the slightest attempt at examm- 
incr it with a view to forming really an opinion of their own. based 
up'^on the facts accessible to them, and upon the arguments withm the 
compass of their minds. They, so to say, let it go by default. This, 
however, is the cause of more than half of the calamities that befall 
democratic republics. Not the passions, and still less the vices, but the 
indifference and indolence of the people as to public questions are the 
main source of the dangers threatening the comomnwealth. I have 
full faith in the principle of democracy to this extent : if the people are 
induced to ponder and examine public questions with the serious- 
ness and thoroughness commensurate to their importance, experi- 
ence warrants our trusting that, as a rule, they will ultimately come 
to a right decision. We need, however, but look up tbe figures of 
the vo'tes on constitutional amendments to receive no uncertain 
answer to the querv, whether momentous questions are always pon- 
dered and examined by them in this manner. The incontestable 
fact is that, unless the personal material interests are directly and 
palpably affected, much time is needed and great efforts are required 
to get them to do it. That they have done it, as to the case in hand, 
no candid man can possibly aver. Politicians actuated by selfish 
motives or bent upon what they conceive to be the party interest, 
some business men with whom it is a self-evident proposition that 
what benefits their own pocketbooks must also subserve the pubhc 
interest, and honest enthusiasts of almost all conceivable varieties 
have combined to build, kindle and fan to a bright blaze the annex- 
ation fire, but the bulk of the people have been mere passive lookers- 
on. Even those who have not been exactly indifferent, but more or 
less interested and amused, have simply taken it for granted that it 
is only the lusty bonfire, which it seems and is asserted to be. They 
have seen no reason to go to the trouble of ascertaining for them- 
selves that really no harm can come from it. The majority of the 
Senate, by resolving to discuss the treaty with closed doors, has 
done it's best to keep them in this frame of mind, until a change of it 



8 

can no longer l)e of any use, l:)ecaiise they will find themselves con- 
fronted by an accomplished fact. Under the specious plea of the 
time-worn rules of the Senate, which, in this ])articular case, are 
manifestly but hollow and rotten props, public opinion is to be de- 
barred from asserting- itself to any purpose. I am the last man to 
deny that this is the most effective strategic move the annexationists 
could make. But does this indirect way of gagging public opinion 
indicate that they honestly believe their cause need shun no criticism? 
That their proceeding is technically warranted by the Constitution 
cannot be disputed; but it is nex'crtheless the privilege, as well as 
the duty, of every citizen not to rest satisfied with their assertion 
that their armor is steel — and bullet-proof — but to test it himself. 

That the Sandwich Islands are one of the fairest spots on God's 
earth, and of considerable economical value, nobody gainsays. I, 
however, hold myself justified in passing by this side of the ques- 
tion, for the simple reason that all the economical advantages to be 
derived from them can be secured without annexation, nay, are 
secured already. That the future will change nothing in this respect 
against the will of the United States is certain, because the immuta- 
ble facts of the case render it palpably and eminently the interest of 
the islands to maintain the established economic relation with this 
country. 

The second reason adduced for annexation is the alleged great 
value of the islands from a -military point of view. Some weeks ago, 
I was triumphantly told that, as to this, all our naval ol^cers are 
agreed, and 1 raised great laughter at my expense by replying that 
I could by no means recognize our naval officers as an authority 
whose ijJse^tjixit settles this question. At the risk of meeting here 
with the same fate, I repeat this declaration. A pnori^ our naval 
ofificers cannot be considered wholly impartial witnesses. It is to be 
presumed that they will be more or less bias'ed in favor of whatever 
tends to increase the import of their vocation. This is no reproach, 
but simply saying that even our naval officers are heirs to human 
nature. Does the past history of mankind not warrant the state- 
ment that tlie military have been fully as i)rone as other mortals to 
view public problems through the medium of their class-interest? 
Besides, it will have to b'e admitted to be at least a possibility that 
the perspective of military men may be marred by taking a some- 
what one-sided, what I should call a too technical view of it. Into 
military questions of this character, largely enter factors which com- 



mon sense is fully capable of judging correctly. And, finally, I do 
not hesitate to venture the assertion, though it may expose me to 
the charge of egotism and arrogance — in military questions of this 
character, also, historians can lay some claim to speaking as experts. 
It goes without saying, that this does not extend to tactical and 
strategic questions, partaking of a strictly technical character and 
requiring a knowledge of practical details. But if they have studied 
the military history of the world with open eyes, they must be per- 
fectly familiar with and competent to judge of the general facts and 
causes on which military strength or weakness necessarily depends. 
In this respect, an able historian even holds vantage ground over 
the majority of military men. If these are not also, to some extent, 
historians, with a dash of statesmanship in their intellectual make- 
up, their very mastery of the more technical sides of their profession 
can easily become a film over their eyes as to these general facts and 
causes. The historian, lacking this kind of knowledge, can only 
take the bird's-eye view, and that does not ofifer such obstructions. 

Let us, however, grant, for a moment, that the military value of 
the islands is all our naval men claim. Ought that to determine us 
in case material objections to annexation must be admitted to exist 
in other respects? I think clearly not, because I confidently defy 
any one to successfully refute the assertion that we can never have 
a war unless it be of our own seeking, and, therefore, the advantage 
would be merely a fictitious gain, so long as we do not put it to 
improper and harmful use. So long as we do not demand of other 
nations more than is justly our due, and do not force them to the 
alternative of drawing their sword or letting their honor be trampled 
upon, they, without a single exception, will never appeal to the 
ultinm ratio. The reason is neither that they love us so much, nor 
that they stand in such awe of our military resources, but simply 
that they are not idiots. Unless their potentates and ministers are 
idiots, they cannot fail to see that, in the given and unalterable con- 
dition of things, even a successful war would be to them absolutely 
barren of any advantages, and that even the most successful war 
would impose upon themselves incalculable sacrifices. A cession 
of territory is out of the question, for the territory of the United 
States — with the exception of uncoveted Alaska — being compact 
and extending over half a continent, the ceded strip of land would 
be simply an earnest of eternally renewed wars till it was regained; 
and the Franco-German war of 1870-71 has forever settled the ques- 



lO 

■ f 

tion that the greatest war indemnity which can possibly be imposed 
upon a vanquished country, falls far short of the expenses of the 
victorious nation. For these reasons, the United States are the one 
nation on earth whose peace is wholly in its own hands. 

That we can, nevertheless, sooner or later be involved in a w^ar, 
is unfortunately only too true. Therefore, it is proper to compare 
our actual condition with what it will be after annexation. 

Our Western coast, say the annexationists, is dangerously ex- 
posed ; the way to it will be most efifectively blocked to every enemy 
if Hawaii is ours, for the hold of no man-of-war is big enough to 
steam from Asia or Australia over the vast Pacific without recoal- 
ing, and that can be done only at Hawaii. It must be conceded 
that there is some truth in this, but if we look a little closer we will 
become satisfied that, after all, it does by far not amount to as much 
as it would seem at first sight. And just as to that power with which- 
we are the likeliest to clash, and whose navy is equal to the combined 
naval forces of any other two powers, it is of the least consequence. 
John Bull is still so large a land-holder on the Western coast of 
America that he neednot defer striking a blow at us on the Pacific 
till he has got his war-ships over from Asia and Australia. As to 
all other powers, we would only gain som'e time by this coaling ques- 
tion, valuable, indeed, but by no means of decisive import. There is 
no means of effectively protecting our shipping but by an adequate 
navy, and our seaports can be successfully defended only by efftcient 
coast defenses. As to the creation of such a navy and such coast 
defenses, the possession or non-possession of Hawaii is, however, 
of no relevancy, and, in point of time, it requires not weeks or 
months, but years. 

In itself, Hawaii is of no military value whatever. This assertion 
is fully endorsed by Captain Mahan, who is usually considered our 
leading naval authority. He writes: "Military positions, fortified 
posts, by land or by sea, do not by themselves confer control. Peo- 
ple often say that such an island or harbor will give control of such 
a body of water. It is an utter, deplorable, ruinous mistake." When 
we have an adequate navy, then, but only then, Hawaii will indeed 
constitute a p^int (fa^P^i o^ ^'^'^ mean value in its operations for the 
protection of our shipping in the Pacific. This is true, but, it is only 
half the truth. The reverse of the medal is, that to be adequate, our 
navy would have to be considerably larger, if Hawaii is ours, than 
if it is not ours. The reason is that we would need a navy large 



II 



enough to protect not only onr shipping and our coasts but also 
HawS If we ™ake it a formidable military stronghold as we 
": do according to the annexationists, any &-- ---^P"- 
is likely, in case of war, to make tt a pnnc.pal object of attack, be 
cause being at such a great distance from our real seat of power 
its defense will be difficult, and necessitate the wthdrawmg of a 
Le part of our naval forces from other points, thereby exposmg 
usLre to telling blows, more especially affecting us econom.cally 
Thit we would much rather suffer these than r.sk anythutg as o 
Hawaii, admits of no doubt. For then we would not tlunk of tt only 
fs a strategic point. We would consider our honor engaged, and 
rati e th n'yieM as to this pomt of honor, we would submtt to any 
sacrifices in money and in blood. This be.ng so, we are justified m 
eeling perfectly Lre that, if we conclude to tek. P-ses^n ^ 
Hawaii, we shall always be able to kem possession of it. That we 
can do t, is, however, no proof that we o^ugJiS to put ourselves under 
tte necessiJy of doing it. Ought we to consider the game worth 
the candle? We are now, in a sense, practically invulnerable. The 
re sons are so obvious that I cannot spare the time to eltic^a^e 
them. Ought we, without any need, to acquire a spot at »hich an 
enemy can hit us infinitely harder than anywhere else? If tlie 
mothir o^Achilles had had forethought enough to bnng the whole 
body of her baby into contact with the water of the Styx would the 
hero have eagerlv snatched at the proffered gift of a heel, which 
would not be tmpenetrable to the arrow of Paris? That .s wha we 
are invited to do. The expense involved in rendering Hawan a 
formidable military stronghold is comparatively of no moment He 
decisive point, as to the military side of the question, is that what 
at first sight seems to be a source of strength will, by directly and 
indirectly acting as a drain upon our force, ultimately prove to be 
a source of weakness. When we come to realize that, it will be too 
late Other mistakes we can correct. This would be a step that 
could not be retraced, and it is this that renders the issue of such 
tremendous import. Not only during a war, but always public sen- 
timent would see "honor" as an insurmountable obstacle in the way. 
To make the best of a bad job, would be all that was left to us. 

I said, a minute ago, very dehbcrately, we would burden our- 
selves with it without any need. That this assertion meets only with 
derision and indignation on the part of the annexationists I know 
full well. Some of them believe, and all of them try to make us be- 



12 



lieve, that we act, in a way, under compulsion, because if we do not 
take Hawaii, most certainly some other power will — probably Eng- 
land. For proofs, we ask in vain. The question why some other 
power, especially England, did not take it long ago, although the 
natives could never have offered any resistance worth speaking of, 
remains unanswered. That the same cry has been raised every 
time we were after some territory; that it has never been substan- 
tiated; that it was most drastically disproved in the case of St. 
Thomas by England's not offering a shilling for this "breeding place 
of earthquakes and hurricanes" when we had failed to buy it, and 
in the case of San Domingo — it is all of no avail. The cry has hardly 
ever failed to have the desired effect. Small wonder, therefore, that 
we hear it now. But I ask: Has not the time come, at last, when we 
can afford to think high enough of our power as well as of our 
dignity, not to let the cry "England!" have the effect upon us that 
the red cloth has upon the bull? 

Nor do 1 stop there. I can serve the annexationists with an 
answer to the question why — if their assertion be true that Hawaii 
is coveted by other nations — it has not been grabbed long ago. 
Simply because all the world knew that the United States would 
not be an indifferent looker-on. Ever since 1825, when, measured 
by the standard of their present power, the United States were a 
mere stripling, the notification — given, by the way, not only to the 
European but also to the other American states (Mexico and Colum- 
bia. See my Constitutional History of the United States, I., 428- 
430) — that they would not "allow" and "permit" Cuba to pass into 
the hands of any other power, has sufficed to prevent the material- 
izing of the projects entertained in different quarters with regard to 
the pearl of the Antilles. And about thirty years ago, though they had 
but just emerged from the most gigantic civil war history knows of, 
their pronouncing, without any blustering, but very firmly, the two 
words *'we object," sufficed to make the French clear out of Mexico. 
Is it, then, not a moral certainty that their categorical "hands ofif!'^ 
would now be respected? It surely bespeaks neither levity nor pre- 
sumption to assume that what more than half a century ago- was 
justly deemed a sufficient curb upon the supposed covetousness of 
the great European powers will not now prove too weak a bit upon 
Japan, the new bug-bear with which the annexationists try to scare 
us into annexation. 



13 



This disposes also of an argument I heard the other day ad- 
vanced by a distinguished Hawaiian. If I understood the gentle- 
man correctly, his declaration was to this effect: If the United 
States do not accede to our request, dissentions are sure to break 
out among the ruling elements of the islands, resulting in eternal 
intrigues with other powers, which it will be impossible to termm- 
ate in any other way than by l^ringing about annexation by one of 
them. It won't take the islanders long to come to the conclusion 
that this is not the way to set their affairs to rights, because the 
warning given by the United States to all other powers will have 
stopped their ears to such solicitations. 

The objection that the islands are a sovereign state, and that we 
have no right to interpose our veto to their merging themselves into 
any other sovereignty — more especially after having refused to take 
them ourselves — does not hold water. It is exactly the same right 
the United States exercised in regard to the Cuban and Mexican 
question: the right to shape their international policy according to 
their interests, and to declare in advance what this poUcy will be in 
certain contingencies. If this policy runs counter to the supposed 
interests of some other state, it is perfectly free, at its own risk, to 
defy this policy. In this case, the ruling classes of the islands have, 
moreover, only to blame themselves, if this puts them into a posi- 
tion they do not like. They would have no right to complain, if we 
were to dismiss their lamentations over the dire consequences they 
declare to apprehend with the cold comifort to be derived from the 
homely saying: You have to eat the soup you have chosen to cook 
for yourselves. But I honestly believe they have no reason to lose 
heart. The docility of the bulk of the population, combined with 
the moral backing they are sure always to receive from the United 
States, because the American people consider their own interests in 
a measure involved in the problem, are a guaranty that it will be 
possible to devise other ways to secure all that is really essential to 
the welfare of the islands. 

My last assertions seem to me so incontrovertible that I think 
even all candid annexationists could not help endorsing them, 
though ever so reluctantly, if it were not for one fact: the annexa- 
tion of Hawaii does not mean the annexing merely of Hawaii. If 
there be one prayer surpassing in practical wisdom and importance 
all others, for nations no less than for individuals, it is this : Lead us 
not into temptation. With Hawaii, however, we would annex temp- 



tation, and it is chiefly because of this that annexation is so enthusi- 
astically urg'ed and so strenuously insisted upon. Undoubtedly the 
annexationists want to get Hawaii for its own sake; but they in- 
finitely more want it as a stepping stone, an opening, a new de- 
parture in the general character of our international policy. And 
they are only too right in assuming that, if they prevail now, the 
question will no longer be whether, but only how fast the nation 
will yield to the temptation. This is no baseless charge. It is daily 
avowed in a hundred different ways. 

I do not mean to assert that the bulk of the annexationists of 
to-day are already now consciously driving at further annexations. 
On the contrary, I believe that the ardor of the majority of them 
would be considerably cooled if they could be made to realize how 
likely this annexation is to lead to the annexation of other outlying 
territory. I confess it is a rather bold assumption, that they do not 
realize it, for it is so palpable that it requires almost an efifort 
not to see it. The question of the annexation of Cuba is of older 
date than that of the annexation of Hawaii, — all the "manifest 
destiny" arguments apply to it much more manifestly, — all the 
strategic lectures we are so liberally treated to in regard to 
Hawaii are, in the main, but repetitions of the strategic lec- 
tures in regard to Cuba, delivered tisque ad^nausearn^ to those 
who sleep in their graves for many a year. Are there no men 
within sight, eager to seize the first opportunity to rake all 
these venerable heirlooms out of the historical lumber-room, 
give them a fresh varnish, set them up and call upon the people to 
come, see, admire, hurra'h, and "go it"? Will unsophisticated peo- 
ple, then, not think that what was but yesterday accepted as sound 
and convincing argument should to-day be allowed to pass as such? 
The better they have learned the lesson, that, as up-to-date patriots, 
they must consider Hawaii an exquisite relish, the more they will 
be disposed to roll Cuba as a sweet morsel under their tongue. 
L^Pi)etit yjent en mangeant And the veriest tyro in politics cannot 
fail to discern how easily the actual condition of things in the hap- 
less island may turn the perplexing Cuban problem into this chan- 
nel, even without any aid from scheming politicians, and how many 
arguments it would furnish appealing strongly to certain generous 
and noble emotional tendencies, which are marked typical traits of 
the American people. 



15 

Attention had to be called, first, to Cuba, not because there is 
any reason to believe that a considerable number of Americans 
would deem the island the most desirable of all possible acquisitions. 
That has completely changed since slavery was buried beneath half 
a million graves. The next gust of annexation-wind is the likeli- 
est to come from that quarter, because it depends largely on Spain 
.and the Cuban patriots whether the annexation question is to come 
to a head; while as to all other possible acquisitions, no. outside pres- 
sure could be brought to bear upon public sentiment. But while 
Cuba must be watched the closest, it would be a grievous mistake 
to suppose that no other points of the horizon need watching. 
Whenever men of annexation proclivities have been in our public 
councils, they have found no difficulty in putting something nice on 
-the annexation counter, and, whatever they offered, they always had 
exactly the same plausible tale to tell in praising up their merchan- 
dise. A senator, hampered for time to compose a speech of his own 
on the necessity of taking Hawaii, could, for instance, read off nearly 
verbatim President Grant's message on the annexation of San Do- 
mingo, changing only the names; not one of the points that are 
material in the eyes of his brother-annexationists would be missing. 
The astounding impulse commerce and shipping would receive, the 
commanding military position, the isthmus transit, the voluntary 
offer by the government, the "yearning" of the people, the noble 
humanitarian ends to be attained, "the reliable information" about 
the unnamed European power anxious to secure the tit-bit and 
•offering fabulous sums for it — it is all there. 

Am I asked whether I think I could scare the American people 
by conjuring up historical ghosts, the San Domingo project hav- 
ing been shelved twenty-seven years ago? I ask in reply: Is that a 
guaranty that it will never again be taken down from the shelf, 
especially if the modernization of the Senate, \yhich, of late years, 
has been such a fruitful source of inspiring delight and duly appre- 
•ciated blessing to the people oi the United States, should go on as 
it promises to do? If Providence should bless San Domingo with 
another Baez, a second edition, revised or unrevised, of the special 
message of March 23, 1870, would by no means be an impossibility. 
The shelving of the Danish Islands is of a little older date, and, lo 
and behold, in June, 189G, the platform manufacturers sprang on 
the unsuspecting National Republican Convention at St. Louis the 
following resolution: "By the purchase of the Danish Islands, we 



i6 

should secure a proper and much-needed naval station in the West 
Indies;" and the junior senator of Massachusetts is reported ta 
have a bill ready in his pocket, calling upon the party to make good 
its implied promise to materialize this ghost, that 'has been laid these 
thirty years. 

Take a warning. It is very rash to speak of ghosts as to annex- 
ation. You mistake your men if you suppose that, when beaten 
ofi at one point, they will resign themselves to stay defeated as to 
that point. 

Nor is that the only reason why there is no telling what surprises 
may be in store for us if we proceed upon the theory that they will 
ever be at the end of their tether. The sublimated mind of your 
full-fledged annexationist easily alights upon projects utterly baffling 
the puny imagination of common mortals in its wildest flights. The 
purchase of Alaska made the mouth of Robert J. Walker water for 
Iceland. And where does the spirit of our people draw a line to 
extravagance in this respect? Speaking in the House of Represent- 
atives on the bill making the approi)riation for the Alaska purchase,. 
Mr. Shellabarger, of Ohio, stated the reasons commending the 
treaty thus : "That we are a land-stealing people by nature, and that 
our propensities and our manifest destiny are to steal land, until our 
'abutments,' as the gentleman (Donnelly, of Minnesota) says, shall 
be one on the Atlantic and the Pacific, and also upon the Arctic and 
the tropic seas. I know how that argument appeals to our Fourth 
of July natures; I know how that is calculated to carry us ofT in 
that direction, and how I am and how everybody else is disposed 
to fall into this kind of thing. That is one thing we have to en- 
counter in dealing with this matter. Our propensities as Saxons, 
our vanity as Americans, our pride as a great and progressive na- 
tion, our love of dominion, our lust of power, our self-glorification, 
our notions of what a great thing in diameter our country ought to 
be, and, above all, our ideas that it is as impatriotic and out of 
fashion to hold that our future glory is not to be found in owning 
all the continents and the islands between ; all impel us to take this 
land." (Congressional Globe, 2d Session, 40th Congress, Append., 
p. 377.) The bold scofTer thereby provoked the following retort from 
his colleague, Mr. Spalding: "Sir, as an American citizen, and a Re- 
publican at that, I deny that any territory upon this western continent 
is to be deemed foreign to the government of the United States when 
it seeks to extend its limits. I believe that if anything under heaven 



17 

be fated, it is that the American flag shall wave over every foot of 
this American continent in course of time. This proud Repubhc 
will not culminate until she rules the whole American continent, 
and all the isles contiguous thereunto." Here Mr. Pike, of Maine, 
interjected: "Including .South America." Mr. Spalding continued: 
''Including South America, by all means." (Congressional Globe, 
2d Session, -iOth Congress, p. 3810.) 

There you have the Simon-pure annexationist. He does not 
stop short anywhere, nothing is too mad for him; and, judging from 
the beating of the people's pulse in the past, he never doubts that 
he will find a goodly number of approving listeners, whenever he 
shall see fit to begin in good earnest the agitation for the next step 
forward. And with every inch of ground he and his soberer fellow- 
workers — I am tempted to say his soberer co-religionists — are al- 
lowed to gain, their strength and power of mischief increases. Who 
can gainsay that, seeing how the annexation speeches and editorials 
teem with the assertion that our having annexed so much is in itself 
irrefragable proof that we ought to annex more. They know only 
too well how telling an argument that is with people, who are at 
no pains to let their thoughts go any further than they are led. 

In spite of all I have said on this head, the danger of further 
annexations causes me the least alarm. I am enough of an optimist 
to hope that at the next occasion the level-headed men and women 
will not wait until the eleventh hour ere they step forward and 
speak out forcibly enough to arouse the people into assefting their 
sober second thought in so peremptorv^ a manner that their official 
representatives cannot help minding it. I am infinitely less hopeful 
in regard to another side of the question, which is even of vastly 
greater import. 

Captain Mahan says: "This is no mere question of a particular 
act, but of a principle, a policy, fruitful of many future acts." That 
is true, too true, and the scope of it is appalling. 

Further territorial acquisitions are only an incidental feature of 
the irresistible temptation which the annexationists want to foist 
upon the United States by the annexation of Hawaii. It is of the 
most sweeping character, comprising all their relations as a political 
entity with the rest of mankind as poHtically organized. In a con- 
versation on the question I had the other day, a gentleman formu- 
lated the issue thus: "Washington's warning counsels in his Fare- 
well Address as to out international relations were conformable to 



i8 

the then condition, and the American people have done wisely to 
heed them thus far;- now,- however, .we ,have outgrown this condi- 
tion of things, the time has come to close the provincid era of our 
histor}- (a leading daily paper, of Chicago 'goes it one better,' sub- 
stituting 'parbchial' for provincial); henceforth it is our interest, 
and therefore our duty, to assert ourselves to the full extent of our 
actual power as a determining formative factor in all the world's 
concerns and problems." That sounds so plausible and touches so 
strongly two very resonant and most dangerous chords in the popu- 
lar mind, that to consider the refutation easy is to concede the vic- 
tory to the oponent. 

Fisher Ames said, in his famous speech of April 28, 1796, on 
Jay's treaty: "The treaty alarm was purely an address to the im- 
agination and prejudices of the citizens, and not on that account 
the less formidable. Objections that proceed upon error in fact or 
calculation may be trf ^|ed and exposed ; but such as are drawn from 
the imagination or addressed to it elude definition, and return to 
domineer over the mind after having been banished from it by truth." 
(F. Ames's Works, II., 47.) And in the Massachusetts ratification 
convention of 1788, he asserted: "Faction and enthusiasm are the 
instnmients by which popular governments are destroyed." ( Chap - 
JiU-. 4«* II., 7.) What is said in the first quotation of objections drawn 
from or addressed to imagination equally applies to arguments m 
favor of a measure. 

The tremendous import of the truths embedded in these two sen- 
tences is fully realized by but very few. Our typical politicians hold 
them in utter contempt, if they are not as unintelligible to them as 
Chinese, though the reasons rendering imagination and enthusiasm 
so dangerous are obvious enough. Imagination is so formidable a foe, 
because "men are not to be reasoned, out of an opinion they have 
not reasoned themselves into." (- Chaptt^r II., 95.) Enthusiasm, 
however, is the offspring of imagination and sentiment. Democra- 
cies have so much more serious consequences to apprdiend from it 
than peoples living under a different form of government, because 
enthusiasm is intensely contagious, to resist the infection is to 
placard oneself as deficient in patriotism, and in democracies that 
is so momentous a charge that considerable nerve is required not to 
wince under it. To combat with the blandishments of imagination 
and the ardor of popular enthusiasm arrayed against one is, there- 
fore, indeed to fight against heavy odds. And what can appeal more 



19 



powerfully to the imagination, what is better calculated to arouse 
popular enthusiasm than this idea of taking a leading hand in all 
the great affairs of the world! We can do it, and therefore we musj 
do it, partly for our own sake, because if we do not do it we will 
necessarily be distanced in the race for empire and all that it im- 
plies by the other competitors for the stakes, and partly because we 
haye a great and glorious mission to fulfill. 

Aye, sir, a great and glorious mission has been entrusted by 
Proyide'nce'to the people of this republic, and they will become 
recreant to it if they listen to the voice of the tempter. They haye 
thus far worked effectiyely at it by mincling their own business. Now 
they are to hitch the republic to the entangled politics of the rest of 
the world so as to affect it in every way by their yicissitudes, 
whether they are really any of its business or not. Do you know 
what the heaviest incubus is lying upon the nations of Europe? Not 
emperors and kings, not aristocracies, not remnants of feudalism, 
not class distinctions, not lack of liberty, not the antagonism be- 
tween poor and rich, but what the intemational history of Europe 
in the by-gone centuries has bequeathed to them. This heirloom 
forged by the past of that continent, is an unbreakable chain, drag- 
ging them, jointly a^d severally, all the while down and along by 
its terrible weight. This republic of ours came into being practi- 
cally uaencumbered by this chain, and this is one of the cardinal 
causes to which it owes the wonderful possibilities vouchsafed to it 
by Providence. Unbound by the past, it has been free to shape its 
course with a single view to its true interests, and it can remam 
thus free to the end of time. And now it shall renounce this inestim- 
able privilege and insist upon having its arms, too, riveted to the 
curseful chain to satisfy a delusive megalomaniac itch. 

Yes, delusive ! They grossly deceive themselves who believe that 
this is the way to secure to our prestige the luster, and to our in- 
fluence the weight, to which our actual power entitles us. The 
longer we continue what they are pleased to term the provincial or 
colonial period of our histor\\ the surer and the more these ends 
will be attained. The new international part we are urged to play 
would consume no inconsiderable part of our strength, and it would 
necessarily result not only in what would be deemed sucesses, but 
also expose us to occasional checks; for so overtopping our power 
is, after all, not yet, that we would always have it all our own way. 
On the other hand, leaving well enough alone, continuing to travel 



20 



on the old roads that have conducted us to where we are now, our 

actual strength will and must go on increasing at least at the rate 

it has done heretofore. Prestige and influence, however, are not 

commensurate to the degree of meddlesomeness, but depend solely 

on the actual power, and our greater actual power could every time 

be brought to bear with its full weight on questions that are really 

our business, i. e., palpably affect, not our imaginary and -faetiow^ ^^^^^''^^^'^ 

but our real interests. We rest under no obligation, nay, we have ' 

no right to do aught contravening these for any missionary purposes 

whatever. To do this would be pure and simple Quixotism, and 

Quixotism of an infinitely more vicious type than that of the noble 

knight of La Mancha ; not a generous folly, but a portentous crime 

— a crime not only against ourselves, but also against mankind. For 

tiie stricter we are guided only by our own true interests, the more 

effectively do we serve the true interests of mankind. 

Look at what our contemned provincial policy has accomplished 
already. An Austrian minister calls, in tones of deep distress, upon 
the nations of Europe to make a joint stand against the unbloody 
onslaughts of the transatlantic giant. ^ He not only sets their tillers 
of the soil a-squirming, but is also changing with bewildering rapid- 
ity from a buyer into a seller of manufactured goods. Nor is this 
due solely to the unsurpassed natural resources of his patrimony 
and his ingenuity and industry. He can bend all his energies to the 
legitimate tasks of civilized man. They are condemned to spend an 
awful and ever-increasing part of their strength upon maintaining 
among each other the equilibrium of destructive force. This end- 
less chain must ultimately put them at our mercy. No less an au- 
thority than Moltke has frankly confessed that it cannot go on so 
forever. No, it cannot, and primarily for this reason, that the eco- 
nomical competition of nations not weig"hted down by this endless 
chain must, in the end, become crvishing. Thus the best interests of 
mankind are served in an eminent degree by the economical pres- 
sure we exercise upon the leading nations of Europe. For it steadily 
pushes them towards the line, where they must turn over a new leaf 
of their history, whether or no. It forces them to learn the lesson 
that, in the nature of things, the progress of civilization implies the 
conscious and systematic contending against and breaking down of 
whatever tends to the settlement of international questions by the 
sword. The history of the world has taken such a turn that, so far 
as we are concerned, in tlie long run much more coercive power is 



21 



to be derived from peace, from whatever is calculated to keep us 
out of the broils of the world, than from any number of battleships 
we are able to build and to man, and from having- our fingers in all 
the pies that are being baked in the hot oven of international 
politics. 

As to the rest of the mission entrusted to us, I can say on this 
occasion only this much: It does not consist in g-oing forth among 
all the heathen and preaching to them — in whatever way it may be 
— the gospel of our free institutions, but in staying quietly at home 
and teaching them by our example. Here is a vast enough field 
for missionary work to keep all our material, intellectual, and moral 
energies fully employed a good long while. It never pays and al- 
ways comes wnth a bad grace to volunteer to sweep other people's 
houses, while in one's own abode many a nook and corner stands 
badly in need of a thorougli cleaning. It will be early enough in 
the day to proclaim ours all Ijrightness and gloss when the papers 
have been able to grant us a single week's respite in dinning into our 
ears the sorry tales of bossism, rotten municipal governments, cor- 
rupt and incapable State legislatures, unscrupulous and voracious 
corporations, etc., etc. 

Are the tasks confronting us in all these problems not grave, dif- 
ficult, and urgent enough to deprecate whatever is calculated to di- 
vert the popular mind and the popular conscience from them? And 
will this launching us into the troubled sea of an imperial interna- 
tional policy not have this tendency? Take heed, gentlemen. I do 
not hesitate to express my firm conviction that it is advocated by 
many an anexationist with a view to this end. And even if this 
charge be unfounded, there is no doubt that it will serve as an in- 
valuable cover to the class of men so graphically described in the 
witty saying that they turn patriots after having failed in every other 
vocation; for these worthies are no fools, but know a good thing 
when they see it. 

"Neither are England, Germany, France, and Russia fools." 
,^^^Thet^ some annexationist^ interject, "and they are tumbHng over 
each other in their hot craving for what you contend must prove to 
us to be a prickly pear." Isn't it rather strange that the very men 
who are wont scornfully to hoot down the craven notion that the 
United States can learn from Europe valuable lessons of any kind 
whatever, are in this case so eager to bid us accept Europe as an 
authoritative model? I for one must beg to be excused, because, 



22 



whether the European powers act wisely or not, their doings cannot 
serve us as an example, for they act under conditions that are not 
analogous to our own, but essentially different. England and Ger- 
many have a larger population than they can sustain. With them 
the question, therefore is, what can be done to secure the greatest 
benefit to the mother country from the outflow of the surplus. 
France has no people to spare and many reflecting and discerning 
men therefore do not doubt that her so-called colonial policy must 
turn out a losing venture and are satisfied that only vanity prevents 
the French people from realizing its folly. More than once France 
has brought down upon herself unutterable misery and woe by her 
inclination to consider "prestige'' and "gloire" her paramount inter- 
ests ; prestige and gloire^received a terrible blow by her last war with 
Germany, and the people give her rulers almost carte blanche as to 
measures which can be made to appear a burnishing up of the 
dimmed luster. Russia, while prone even more than we to confound 
size and greatness, is partly prompted in her policy of expansion by 
a desire resting upon a basis of sound statesmanship. Her usable 
coast line is greatly out of proportion to her vast expanse of territory, 
and she more especially stands sorely in need of ice-free harbors. 
Are we as to any one of the points mentioned in a similar situation? 
We have no surplus population, we have not to retrieve lost prestige 
and glory, we do not stand in need of more coast line or ice-free har- 
bors. There is still room for uncounted millions within our borders, 
every year brings new revelations as tp the boundlessness of our nat- 
ural resources, and we command all the means necessary for securing 
all the benefits to be derived from peaceable intercourse with other 
nations, without having to resort to a hazardous change of our inter- 
national policy. 

If I were to stop here, I think I would have said enough to con- 
vince any American Whose mind is still open to argument as to this 
question that the annexation of Hawaii would at best be a leap in the 
dark, which we as sensible people ought not to take, unless we are 
compelled to do it. And still by far the most momentous objections 
I have not yet even alluded to. 

In the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence it 
is asserted that governments derive "their just powers from the con- 
sent of the ^governed." The Declaration of Independence is the 
nation's birth-certificate, officially and authoritativeZb;!^ stating its 
raison d'etre. To eliminate this axiomatic assertimi as the basi^C-- 



23 



formative nay creative principle of our whole national existence,. is 
to dve the lie to the generation of 1776 and our whole past history. 
The annexation of Hawaii as proposed would be such an elimination 
as to the islands. This the annexationists deny, pointing to the 
unanimous ratification of the treaty by the Hawaiian Senate. I ask: 
is there one man among those of them whose reputation for honesty 
and candor is not a sham and a fraud, who could look another honest 
man square in the face and protest that he would not indignantly 
pronouncethis justification a disingenuous evasion and a brazen 
quibble, if the Hawaiian government had originated with English- 
men and under English auspices, as it has originated with Americans 
under American auspices, and England were to adduce such a ratifi- 
cation as incontestable proof that annexation would rest upon the 
consent of the governed? This specious argument may do as a 
soporific drug for the uneasy conscience of honest annexationists, 
but it can never fool those who do not subscribe to the doctrine that 
the essence is of no consequence, if it can be covered up by ever so 
thin a veil of a plausible form. 

Proof is not lacking that they know it well. Though the Senate 
discusses the treaty behind closed doors the Washington correspond- 
ents have no difficulty in sending a synopsis of the speeches to their 
papers. It is curious reading. I have not been able to quite make 
up my mind which of the several astounding statements deserves the 
• palm. The guns "pointing straight" to the mouth of the Nicaraguan 
canal iflLSjee^over a couple of thousand miles have it, I said to myself, 
when I vainly tried to fathom the awful consequences of the develop- 
ment of artilleristic possibilities foreshadowed in this momentous an- 
nouncement by so eminent a ballistic authority, as a United States 
Senator cannot fail to be. But I again became doubtful, when I 
read that the natives were now, as they always had been, enthusiastic 
for annexation. Did the wicked press palm off a sensational ro- 
mance upon the people with its stories about a deputation of natives 
gone to Washington to protest against annexation? Why did a 
prominent Hawaiian gentleman, who for years has been earnestly 
laboring for annexation, to my direct question the other day as to 
the attitude of the natives, give an answer in which the absence of the 
faintest intimation of such an enthusiasm was painfully conspicuous? 
Above all: if the natives have such an ardent longing to become 
Americans, why does no annexationist want to hear of the proposi- 
tion to make annexation dependent on a free expression of the popu- 



24 

lar will? Except in cases of conquest this has been for about forty 
years the uniform practice in Europe, which we are so prone to decry 
as despot-ridden. We, the democracy par excellence, with the Dec- 
laration of Independence tucked under our arm, are now to abjure 
the old faith and proclaim by our act a new creed to this purport: 
"the consent of the governed'' is a good enough thing, if you are the 
o-overned; a fool, who stickles about it. if his chance to govern de- 
pends on disregarding it. 

This objection, the annexationists declare, is a shell sounding so 
loud only because it is hollow ; the argument comes too late in the 
day; many a vast territory has been annexed by the United States 
without submitting the question to a popular vote; then nobody 
thought of making the charge that the underlying principle of the 
Declaration of Independence was infringed, and even supposing that 
it could have been made nobody can contend to-day that any harm 
has come of it. To the uninformed and the unthinking this may 
seem a plausible refutation ; in fact it has no basis whatever to rest 
upon. It is very clear that no precedent is to be found in the past 
history of the United States — provided we are not prepared to con- 
test wdiat all mankind has thus far been agreed upon, viz. : that every 
principle requires a reasonable application, because in practice every 
principle turns into a monstrous absurdity if it be run down to its 
last logical conclusions. The Indians inhabiting the Territories in 
question were savages, and as to annexation savages were never 
thought to come within the pale of the principle of the Declaration 
of Independence. The other inhabitants — Texas excepted, where, 
although the popular sentiment was not doubtful, a convention was 
called ad^hoc^-were comparatively few in number, occupying but a 
small part of the territory to be annexed, and the gift of American 
citizenship was deemed so valuable that the dispensing with their 
consent was morally justified. In Hawaii not a single savage is to be 
found, the islands are more densely peopled than vast areas within 
the borders of the United States, and as to the gift of American 
citizenship- — Ah, "there is the rub." 

Is the infringement of the principle that governments derive their 
just powers from the consent of the governed to be confined to the 
question of annexation, or is it after annexation to go on indefinitely, 
permanently? The treaty is silent on this all-important question. 
President McKinley in his message recommends "the most just pro- 
visions for self-rule in local matters, with the largest political liberties 



25 

as an integral part of our nation'' to the Hawaiians. That sounds 
fair enough. But a ruthless sceptic arises who will not be satisfied 
with two lives of "glittering generalities;" he insists upon a bill of 
specifications. 

Oh, say our annexationists, this is not the time to talk of details; 
in due time Congress will see to that and fix it all right. Excuse me. 
This is the time to discuss the details. After annexation it will be 
too late, for the annexation could not be undone, and great as the 
w'isdom of Congress unquestionably is, it is not equal to the impossi- 
ble; the discussion of the details, however, would prove beyond con- 
troversy that the given condition of things, the hard unalterable facts 
of the case render impossible a fixing of the practical details so as to 
make a satisfactory, nay even a tolerable job of it. 

Who are the Hawaiians the President had in mind, when he 
penned the passage in his message which I quoted before? The 
Chinese are not included, for our laws brand them not only as unfit 
for citizenship, but even as a tainted race against which "the land of 
the free" must be closed altogether. How far the Japanese come 
under- ^the same head may be a question that has as yet not been 
definitely passed upon by the courts; but that the ruling element in 
Hawaii views the class of Japanese settled in the islands in no other 
ligiit than the Chinese is not disputed, and that on this point Ameri- 
can public sentiment. will fully sustain the ruling element of Hawaii 
admits of no doubt. The Portuguese, at least so far as the exercise 
of political rights is concerned, are not much more favorably looked 
upon by those who pose as "the Hawaiians." Mr. W. N. Arm- 
strong, of Honolulu, who I understand cuts quite a figure in the 
front row of the annexation phalanx, goes to the length of denying 
their right to be counted among "the whites." As to the natives or 
Kanakas, the Supreme Court of Utah, then a Federal tribunal, held 
in 1889 iji re^ Kanaka Nian, as Air. Lobingier points out to The Na- 
tion, that they cannot be naturalized. Congress could, of course, 
nevertheless confer the sufTfrage on them. But if this were done, 
what would the^ Hawaiians come to think of "the wisdom" of Con- 
gress? Mr. Armstrong says: "It must be distinctly understood 
that, besides ruling themselves, the whites must create a form of gov- 
ernment through which they can rule natives, Chinese, Japanese, 
and Portuguese, in order to prevent being 'snowed under.' That is, 
we need two distinct forms of government made up into one form; 
one for ourselves and one for aliens, who outnumber us." (Quoted 



26 

ill The Nation, Dec. 2, 1897.) In parenthesis: make a note of it in 
vour Webster or Century Dictionar} that in Hawaiian English na- 
tives means aliens. Now, will it be denied that t]i^ ilawaiians are 
more competent to judge of the Kanakas than Congress? The wis- 
dom of the Hawaiians, however, informs us that the Kanakas are 
utterly unfit to rule and must be ruled. Rev. Dr. S. E. Bishop, the 
son of a missionary and himself a missionary pastor, most emphati- 
cally endorses what JMr. Armstrong asserts on this head. The Kan- 
aka, he says, "can no more rule than a child;" "in kindness he can- 
not be left to assert a right to control the vast public interests here." 
(Quoted in The Nation of Dec. 9, 1897, from The Independent.) 

Now, what does all this mean? The venerable gentleman last 
quoted concludes from it: "the question (of annexation) is one too 
broad and far-reaching for the mass of the people to vote on with 
any intelligence." Though there may be and probably is a good 
deal of truth in this, it does not warrant our trampling under foot the 
basic principle of the Declaration of Independence. But let it be 
granted for argument's sake that it is conclusive as to the question 
whether a ratification of the tender of the Hawaiian governmental 
authorities by popular vote may be dispensed with. Would that be 
conclusive also as to the main question? Whether Dr. Bishop's 
conclusion be right or not, it is most obviously not the only conclus- 
ion to be drawn from the facts I mentioned. According to their 
own statement t];e Hawaiians are less than 1,000 in a population of 
about 110.000 and the 106,000 "aliens" or non-"whites'' are of such a 
character that we could not afford to merge the islands in the Union, 
though their strategic and economical value were a hundred times 
what it is claimed to be. That is what Mr. Armstrong and Dr. Bish- 
op have demonstrated beyond the possibility of refutation. 

In the discussion of the Alaska purchase Mr. Shellabarger and 
other opponents of the measure strongly dwelt upon the fact that this 
was the first time non-contiguous territory was to be acquired. It 
is still much too early to contend that experience has proved their 
apprehensions to be unfounded. The first war with a great na\al 
power may easily bring a drastic vindication of their views. x\nd 
even if it should fail to do so, that would by no means disprove the 
principle they contended for. Possibly Alaska would play no part of 
any consequence in such a war, only because the United States, in 
spite of its gold-bearing rivers and mountains, do not deem it valu- 
able enough to warrant considerable efforts for its defense, or because 



27 



the enemy thinks that all his forces can be employed to better purpose 
at other points. Whether territorial contiguity ought to be made a 
sine qita nonforannexation. we, however, need not discuss to-day. To 
;;^^7^der i't of no consequence is certainly not the part of sound states- 
manship. But let its import be rated ever so high, another question 
is indisputably of vastly greater moment. Homogeneity as to what 
is in the true and strict sense of the word essential must be deemed 
indispensable. If this degree of homogeneity does not exist at the 
time the annexation is contemplated, it must at least be certam that 
it can be brought about in a very short time. Accordmg to the 
unanimous testimonv of the.Hawaiians, this degree of homogeneity 
does not exist at present in Hawaii and the facts on which their state- 
ment rests prove that it cannot be brought about in the fuure, either 
near or remote. That ought to settle the question with every 
American, who does not let imagination and enthusiasm get the 
better of his sober reasoning. 

Self government is to this gigantic republic of ours even more 
than its breath of life ; it is its very structural principle. It permeates 
not only all its institutions, but also the whole thinking and feeling 
and all the habits of the people, which are even a greater force m a 
nation's life than its institutions. In the great ordinance for the or- 
cranization of the Northwestern Territory, antedating the constitu- 
tion, it was made the bedrock on which the new commonwealths 
must be reared that .in the course of time were to become equal con- 
stituent members of the Union. The federal government under the 
constitution has never swerved from the path thus taken by the old 
Congress. Our laws teem with provisions bearing testimony to the 
fact that self government is the basic national principle, not merely 
-ranted as an inestimable privilege to the incipient new common- 
wealths, the inchoate states of the future, but also imposed upon 
them as an irrefragable obligation. A committee of the Hawaiian 
Senate, however, has informed us that "good government cannot be 
permanently maintained in these islands without aid or assistance 
from without." What is this if not a formal official declaration that 
Hawaii is permanently incapable of self government? Therefore, if 
we annex Hawaii we consciously insert into the nation's lifeblood a 
foreign body which cannot be assimilated. 

Am I to be answered that so tiny a thing in so huge a body can 
surely not do much harm? Beware! A foreign body in the blood, 
which cannot be assimilated, \\\\\ cause festering though it be never 



28 

so tiny, and if it be not removed the festering will spread, slowly 
perhaps, Init steadily. An incongruous element will be introduced 
into our institutions and, what is a hundred times more portentous, 
this will bring about progressing vitiation of the thinking and feeling 
and of the habits of the people. We will have two heterogeneous 
basic principles, two heterogeneous sets of institutions, two hetero- 
geneous sets of ideas, sentiments, and practices; and, as with two dif- 
ferent money standards, the baser will constantly encroach upon and 
irresistibly filch ground from the better. The eclipse of the republic 
will have set in. For a nation's vitality is not to be measured by 
area, wealth, and power; it primarily depends on the energy and 
momentum of the vital force in the harmonious regulation of all the 
vital functions. When the area, wealth and power of the Roman 
empire were the greatest. Fate, in pursuance of the implacable laws 
governing the life of nations, tolled its death knell. 

I, too, am a sincere and tliorough believer in the "manifest des- 
tiny" of this country; I have only a somewhat different conception of 
what it is popularly understood to mean — different, but certainly not 
less lofty. Yea, I believe in its manifest destiny and I am thoroughly 
convinced that nobody can thwart or prevent its fulfilment — -Jiobody 
but o urs elves . The annexation of Hawaii, however, seems to me the 
first fatal step towards our frustrating its fulfilment. I have ex- 
amined the question honestly and earnestly, bringing all the light to 
bear upon it furnished me by knowledge of human nature, by my 
obsei'vations during repeated extended sojourns in most of the lead- 
ing countries of the world, by my studies of the history of mankind 
and especially of this country. Though the frankness with which I 
have stated the result to which I have come, is perhaps unpalatable, 
I trust it will be admitted that I have reasoned dispassionately. Aye, 
dispassionately, but not as if there was nothing in the problem to 
touch the emotional chords in my mind's harp. I feel strongly about 
it. My race will be run long ere the dire consequences which I ex- 
pect will become very manifest. But I have taken my children along 
to become and remain Americans. How then can I help looking 
beyond my grave with deep concern and considering the issue as in 
a way of personal moment to me? How can you help doing the 
same? All the impressiveness I can command I wish to lay into my 
last word, addressing it to every one of you individually: tua res 
agitur, it is your cause I have been pleading. 




LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



013 744 800 2 



